The most profound chatter in public discourse in the last few days is no doubt the off and on attempt to amend the 1987 Constitution. The motivations of various proponents of this move are not the same, much less transparent. While some are genuinely convinced of the need to amend specific provisions on the economy, others are suspected of concealing a hidden agenda to tinker with other subjects which are political in nature.
First and foremost to consider is whether there is a need to amend or even revise the Constitution and if there is, what mode to adopt to accomplish it. The oft-repeated justification for Charter change is allegedly to remove restrictive economic provisions “to encourage foreign investments” and bring about economic prosperity to the country. We wonder if those articulating this—mostly small-time politicians—know what this means or what specific measures will usher an economic utopia for the Philippines.
On the other hand, a slew of thoughtful analysts believe there is no need to amend the Constitution to attract foreign investments. Any incentive for them to come to the country simply requires a hospitable environment for their investments through legislation by Congress. As often cited, investors want a stable environment where contractual obligations are sacrosanct, administrative regulations are fair, reasonable, and consistent, and government severely reduces red tape and corruption.
If indeed, amendments to the Constitution are, however, imperative, how shall we go about it ? The confusion in the discussion on the mode to effect amendments reflects a witches’ brew of private interests, hidden agenda, and even the hand of outside forces attempting to control our economy. Since substantive subjects may be discussed in the end, we should intelligently choose a mode that will prevent insidious tinkering with our Constitution—and the general well-being of the nation.
Initially, a people’s initiative should be avoided. Not only is the methodology to implement it susceptible to anomaly and corruption, it is also obvious that the masses are not familiar with the Constitution and if so, how can they intelligently propose any amendment at all? Whom are we fooling? Then, there is the constituent assembly and the bicameral constituent assembly voting separately. Is this even legal? As perceptively expressed by Albay Rep. Edcel Lagman, the constituent assembly authorized by the Constitution is to vote jointly because the members of Congress will be acting not as a legislature but as a constitutional assembly not requiring bicameral action.
All told, only a constitutional convention, composed of delegates specially elected by the people to amend or revise the Constitution will remove the uncertainties and doubts about the rationale and motivations to effect Charter change. Let the people elect the best and the brightest of the country to propose amendments to the Constitution through a constitutional convention.
Ancheta K. Tan, ancheta.tan@cltpsj.com.ph